Atlas Feedback from non Atlas players aka Don’t look here PG


#37

I’ll rephrase. Sorry Jared for “being uncivil” in response to your very passively civil comment.

I, CheekyGrinch, did not know that forum notifications were setting off alarms in his house and therefore keeping him from sleeping. I thought it was just a notification on the forums. Sorry for not understanding the magnitude of tagging someone in a post. There should be a warning for this as many people have families. I can’t imagine the amount of children awoken by these forums allowing such uncivilized abuse of the tagging system at all hours of the night.

Better?


#38

Also perhaps you should remain current if you’re going to bring “after hours” into play. This thread was created after hours? Guess what else was? I’ll give you the answer: the reason this thread exists. Do you know who was online while all this was happening? I’ll give you the answer: the person tagged. Seriously dude, really…


#39

This isn’t going to help you buddy. I suggest we stay factual and civil.

Plus you’re getting upset about something you don’t yet have access to, and hadn’t even been worked on yet.


#40

Honest question where did I miss factually?


#41

Part 2 actually this is a response to Jared’s comment read up a tad buddy.


#42

@CheekyGrinch Giving Atlas to more teams is absolutely a priority. You probably haven’t seen this post over in the Atlas forum but the tl;dr is that Atlas isn’t ready for more players yet. As much as I’d like to include many more teams, it’s even more important to make sure that new teams will really enjoy their time in Atlas when they arrive. If you’ve read the first draft World War proposal, I think you’ll notice that there’s some very colorful and vibrant discussion about how to get Atlas there. There are a lot of different opinions, and it will take time to collect those opinions (often differing) and work with players to make Atlas ready for everyone else. The fastest way to proceed would be to simply let everyone in or put some of these well-intentioned plans into motion without lengthy discussions with players. But I think that would clearly lead to a lower quality experience, and I’d prefer to stick to the inclusive, community-oriented approach to Atlas in the belief that building something with our players is the best way.

Addressing core issues like balance and pacing (among other things) are at the top of our list. I think this thread about a new Primarch type is a great example of how the community has helped us tackle some thorny challenges. It’s a long read, but the journey was interesting and left us with a solution that the community also stood behind. Good times!

Re (4) – It’s very hypothetical right now. On the off-chance it came to pass, we’d group teams with war disabled/enabled so nobody would be “stuck.” Good edge case; there are almost certainly more as well. I think we have some more fundamental issues to discuss and decide on first, and later if it still makes sense we’ll come back to how it might impact war.


#43

Thanks for the response. Sorry for waking you up. I read/was following and reading that entire thread. I saw the thread you were guessing I didn’t, too. You were met with overwhelming resistance and while I can appreciate that some of the more outlandish things were scrapped like giving away dragon tiers it still remains a thing. By the time Atlas is “fun enough” it’ll be too late for a ton of players.

How about asking teams if they want to be in Atlas before placing them or not? You have teams with Atlas that have shattered and scattered to get away from it, and teams without it begging to get in.

At the rate this is going, literally none of this matters to anyone that isn’t already in Atlas except for upsetting balance between Atlas and non-Atlas teams. If you’re trying to get rid of the War Dragons side of the game, just separate the two completely. I don’t want to be in a league with teams that can toggle whether or not they are doing war.

Let players decide what is “fun” and what isn’t.

And again, thank you for your feedback. It’s refreshing seeing someone like you on the forums even though this is the only time I’ve ever had contact with you. I don’t mean any of this post to come off disrespectfully. I’m just tired of the game I’m playing getting next to 0 attention while the game others are playing (Atlas) gets all the attention.


#44

Believe it or not this Atlas World War event directly fixes (or attempts to) a number of very difficult
Issues that plague teams who aren’t established and stuck in the safe zone.

Adding more tokens and using a sort of wager in tokens based on team differences sounds good and maybe more like how the main game should go.

Yes the player targeted rewards would probably cause some issues (and appear to have been withdrawn) but I could see how as a team
Leader I could improve the entire team by helping my lowest free to play player have better dragons. I think the idea of higher egg token incentives is a great idea. Where one team wagers them to another. Maybe there could be an actual prize for the MVP instead of just recognition but I don’t see individual player reward as being criticalif it was to happen or not happen.

I’m most interested about the 300% fort buffing (on top of whatever fort buff currently exists)… this should (with enough buffing) prevent established players from being constantly wiped off the map as it becomes very expensive in troops

This theoretically means smaller players have a useful reason to create troops in atlas more than committing suicide for GP. Now they need to war vs equal and larger players. I like this.

This theoretically means land should be actually
Available to all. Let me tell you sitting in the safe zone is boring. Without land I just queue troops and do xp runs on invader and occasionally kill troops for rider shards. Much of the game is in land. This might actually make land available to all. Of corse land becomes easier to take during war, but only for teams within a range. (similar to existing wars)

Another advantage here is when using GP you no longer have the rigid 50 member limit. This allows you to (for better or worse) do well as a team without full members. (You can attack multiple times for more glory/VP, although they maybe should have a max VP per player) - it also probably removes the defends metric?

I was concerned about disabling wars but if the teams with disabled wars are all moved to atlas leagues then that removes my concern on that.

I do have major concerns about the time frame being 36 hours. I feel like the attacker should be a limit here. A 36 hour massacre is going to just destroy each other and make wars happen far less than desired If there isn’t some kind of cap on how much VP/GP that can be obtained per player. (Which then maybe returns us to a tie breaker stat like we have now). I also feel like if the defender can opt for a second team to attacker should have control over the time start, being it’s a 36 hour window, plenty of daytime no matter when

But all and all, I know everyone seems to dislike it, but it’s in a positive direction. At least I think.


#45

Yeah I hate the way Atlas has been handled…

I am in the camp of wanting the core game to stay and Atlas just being an add on not taking over WD.

And it’s very irritating this long into Atlas and how many Leagues have access? Not near as many as it should be! I understand it’s loaded with bugs!

But instead of leaving teams out and only making it to where when it does come they have no chance why would they not just add leagues in like all of Diamond for 1-3 months then add sapphire but take Diamond out! Of course money has been spent so save their progress and put up temporary shields idk? Something!
Then take out Saph add half of Plat then the other half!

That just seems like a much better and more fair idea! Idk how it would work with people not being able to attack and defend their land but I’m sure they could figure something out!

Then we don’t just have Diamond teams in it for a year and make most all other teams especially Plat teams where they have zero chance! Already they have events, extra tokens, etc! I cannot imagine how much the extra shit has built up to in that amount of time after it’s all said and done! It’s ridiculous but hey! What can you do?

And something like that would give them a lot broader view with feedback from high to low levels and Spenders to Non spenders I just think it would make everything more fair overall and provide better feedback! Like I said I’m not sure if something like that is possible but they definitely could have handled it better!

It’s a very annoying subject for me because I wasn’t thrilled about Atlas and now with how it’s been handled I’m even less! And I’ve had very good players leave the team because they wanted Atlas it’s been a mess…


#46

@PGDave In the future where Atlas is rolled out to everyone I really see teams writing that they are Atlas or non-Atlas in their descriptions, and more teams than not choosing to sit out in neutral land than play expendable ensign to established predatory Atlas teams. Motivating teams like mine to take this impending beating is going to take one heck of a carrot.


#47

Hopefully we’ll end up with a better result than that! But there are certainly some things which hamper broad territory ownership right now (more than 75% of teams own territory, but it’s not enough … working with the community on changes like the Sludging Fort, Upkeep changes, etc. that you’ll find in the Atlas subforum and are targeted to help improve the balance and experience of newer teams especially).


#48

Dave, I get that Atlas is your baby and you nurture it as such. Thank you for owning it.

My biggest issues are:
1- teams involved in WW being able to opt of of regular wars
2- Atlas currently pays out daily eggtokens to each player, right? With this change, the players don’t get the tokens, they go to the bank to pay for WW, thus killing a possible additional income of eggtokens so you can “gamble” them on the outcome of a WW
3- giving players entire tiers of dragons. If you are going to give tiers of dragons to players, just put them in packs in the store, and call WarDragons Pay2Play, get rid of the breeding process as that is just about the only thing keeping me playing at the moment, breeding new dragons.
4- giving WW winners a new unique dragon. I’m against this because whether you are aware or not, Atlas has been pitched and mentioned as an add on that players could ignore. So far, the only thing that you can really get in Atlas that you can’t get in the regular game is Riders, but we CAN get those from seasons. Our choice. Adding some “exclusive” new content such as this only widens the gap between Atlas and nonAtlas players. We can no longer ignore it if we choose if we want shiny new things.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg, things that come to mind immediately. I don’t know the ins and outs of Atlas, I was only briefly exposed to it in my alt account which was way overleveled for my dragons, so even that exposure did me little good.

Now, add to that you have teams that have been in Atlas for such a long period of time, reaping the benefits of being there, whether they choose to or not is not relevant, while the rest of us sit here waiting…and waiting…and waiting… for the chance to even see it in action firsthand.

I hate to say it, but even your rough first draft FEELS like Atlas is the intended course for WDs, meaning it is intended to replace what we know as the core game currently. If I am wrong, please, please, correct me. But if I am right, please own it and state that it is so. And even it being less than a full replacement is unacceptable, if Atlas gives new shiny stuff that you cannot get even a toned down version of without it, then it is replacing and/or mandatory to play Atlas to get new stuff…

Thanks for taking the time to come over here.


#49

Many of the issues you addressed are explained or are being handled:


#50

Yes, a few of them are, but a few are actually being expanded upon to clarify that you are indeed losing daily egg token payouts from Atlas. Egg tokens are pretty much the only currency in this game that matters anymore. Anything that puts a player at risk of losing a source of them is bad, very bad. I do not think that is being stressed enough.

And gambling on the outcome of the war with them? Inconceivable!


#51

Thank you very much for this assessment. I have been in Atlas with a former team for a few weeks, and seen the advantages it brings in regular play. Being in a non-Atlas team now, makes me miss the benefits in gear, tokens and riders even more.
I have no idea how Plat and Sapphire teams will be able to survive in a Diamond dominated map with players who have experience in Atlas for many months. PG does not seem to have much of an idea either.
I just hope that the efforts to make this fair will not result in so many more weeks of delay, that Atlas will become unfeasable for new teams and the whole thing goes the way of the bazaar.
I would rather die in a blaze of glory in Atlas now, than wait forever to eventually join in a world full of new features like WW that may not work out as planned when more teams join.
Also admittedly I am running out of patience. A release party should lead to a release eventually, not an everlasting beta test.


#52

Am I not reading what Jared said correctly?

“Re tribute tokens – No you do not contribute them from your personal stash. The fort produces tokens that get sent to the community fund.”

“Re 100k tokens – This is a teamwide ante. You don’t need to spend – these are free tokens that accrue merely for owning land in Atlas”

…I don’t see how this is “losing daily egg token payouts”.


#53

@pgdave I respectfully request that you and your team reconsider adding the rest of the teams to the beta. The argument that it need to be ‘enjoyable’ for new teams is moot, if 50 teams have a 16 month start, and another 100+ have 4/5 months of a start I can assure you the rest of us are not going to enjoy it anyways. You want to tweak the balance issues? Why not do it just once for efficiency, rather than having to do it again (which will be the case) when you add the other teams. You think there’s a huge difference between teams in sapph 2and sapph 3? There is not. Many of the sapph 1/sapph 2 teams that were given the atlas are now in sapph 3 anyways :woman_shrugging:t2:

The atlas wasn’t ready for use as a beta, nor when it was released to the select few. Yet they are gaining core game advantages (extra Xp from their invader base. AN invader base lol. Prizes from events such as eggs and clocks. Rider Xp…we can have them but not level them without spending in the core game?) it might be a shitshow for a few weeks, but the way things are planned now you’re just putting off the inevitable, whilst annoying a large sector of your paying customers. Give us the chance to catch up and get our heads around atlas at the same pace as our peers. Please reconsider. The decision to fether a large section of the player base and release the atlas to all.


#54

Don’t you get daily tokens within Atlas from the forts you own now? It is my understanding that instead of those going to the player, they go into the fund now.

I could be wrong, but that’s the way it sounds to me.


#55

Yep that’s exactly how it is. For example I now get 98 tokens a day from owning land in Atlas. That 98 was credited to me directly. With this proposed change it will now go into the team fund (much like medals in main game) and be used as ante for world wars. So yes I will lose that 98 that I am getting now.


#56

My bad, I thought you were saying people had to spend tokens from the core game. I don’t have access yet so to me it seems like you aren’t really losing anything (extra tokens given, then taken).

I guess if you spend money in Atlas then that might be considered a loss, but that ship sailed for me with this extremely long rolling release.